Connect with us

National

Advocacy groups mark Banned Books Week

‘Book bans have no place in our democracy’

Published

on

"All Boys Aren't Blue" and "Gender Queer" (Photos via Amazon)

People across the country from Sept. 22-28 are observing Banned Books Week, which has taken on added significance amid a surge of censorship efforts.

Banned Books Week, organized by PFLAG and a coalition of other advocacy groups, literary organizations, and educational institutions, seeks to raise awareness about efforts to remove content from public libraries, schools, and bookstores.

The current wave of book bans, which began intensifying in 2021, is driven primarily by conservative groups who disproportionately target titles featuring the voices and experiences of LGBTQ people and people of color.

“This is part of an organized effort to divide our communities by stoking fears against LGBTQ+ people, Black people, and immigrants,” PFLAG Vice President of Advocacy Katie Blair said. “[It] is targeted not only to banning books and censoring schools, but to infiltrating the lives of LGBTQ+ people and those who love them.”

While LGBTQ books have always been a target of book bans, censorship efforts in recent years are more focused on restricting access to LGBTQ content than in the past.

The Washington Post reports “LGBTQ books were the targets of between less than 1 and 3 percent of book challenges filed in schools” from the 2000s to the early 2010s. In 2022, however, 45.5 percent of unique titles that were challenged were written by or about LGBTQ people.

“Book bans have no place in our democracy,” the Congressional Equality Caucus said in a post to its X account.

On the American Library Association’s 2023 list of the 10 most challenged books, seven books featured LGBTQ voices; with Maia Kobabe’s “Gender Queer,” George M. Johnson’s “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” and Juno Dawson’s “This Book is Gay” topping the list.

The consequences of restricting access to LGBTQ stories and voices are far reaching especially for young people, Blair said.

“These bans contribute to the erasure of our communities and our histories, and all our stories deserve to be told. We believe that all students deserve the freedom to learn. They deserve to be able to develop their critical thinking skills, to be in schools that are open and affirming,” she said.

Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the director of the ALA’s Office of Intellectual Freedom, said another difference in the current wave of censorship is that most calls to censor books in school libraries and public libraries are now driven by organized advocacy groups.

She explained that in the past, most book challenges were initiated by parents and guardians who were concerned about a particular book their child was reading and brought those concerns to a teacher or librarian.

“But now we’re seeing organized groups or their spokespersons showing up at board meetings demanding the censorship of sometimes hundreds of titles all at once. And we’re seeing state legislatures pass laws that are intended to remove hundreds of books, if not thousands of books, all at once, from library shelves,” she said.

Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31, 2024, ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom tracked 1,128 unique titles targeted for censorship. While this number marks a decline from the 1,915 titles challenged during the same period in 2023, it remains far higher than pre-2020 levels, when challenges hovered between 200 and 300 unique titles annually.

Moreover, PEN America, which tracks the total number of book bans rather than unique titles, counted more than 10,000 books that were banned in public schools during the 2023-2024 school year, nearly triple the amount from the previous year. Both ALA and PEN America’s reports exclude instances of soft censorship, where libraries and organizations preemptively avoid purchasing certain books or restrict access due to fear of potential challenges.

According to PEN America, around 8,000 books were banned in Florida and Iowa alone. Both states passed laws in recent years restricting access to books in schools that depict or describe sex. The vague language of the laws has drawn criticism for exacerbating soft censorship, and has often been interpreted to ban books with discussions of gender and LGBTQ identities.

Vera Eidelman, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said, it is “not clear what [the language] means, and that is a problem in and of itself, because if teachers and librarians and other educators face discipline for violating that law, and they don’t know what the law means, that’s a due process problem.”

She noted that the laws have been and are being challenged on grounds of vagueness, and for violating the First Amendment.

Banned Books Week, which library activist Judith Krug founded in 1982, will culminate in “Let Freedom Read Day” on Saturday, on which organizers urge people to take at least one action to defend the freedom to read, such as participating in this year’s elections.

Caldwell-Stone emphasized the importance of being engaged at all levels of government.

“This is an intensely local issue,” she said. “While we are seeing state legislation intended to engage in broad censorship across the state, primarily these decisions are made at the local level.”

Moreover, PEN America, which tracks each instance of a book ban, recorded a preliminary total of more than 10,000 books banned in public schools during the 2023-2024 school year in a preliminary count, nearly triple the amount from the previous year.

Throughout the week, filmmaker Ava DuVernay and student activist Julia Garnett, the honorary chairs of this year’s Banned Books Week, are discussing the various ways people can stand up against censorship attempts in virtual events accessible through the Banned Books Week website.

Libraries in D.C. and across the nation, meanwhile, are hosting readings, art exhibitions, and other activities to educate families about the freedom to read.

The Anne Arundel County Public Library system on Wednesday held an event to celebrate its launch as a “book sanctuary,” designating its libraries as “safe havens where the freedom to read is fiercely protected.”

Caldwell-Stone recommends those who are interested in countering up to censorship efforts view the action toolkit available at www.uniteagainstbookbans.org and the ALA’s “Reader. Voter. Ready.” guide at www.ala.org.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

The White House

Trump proclamation targets trans rights as State Dept. shifts visa policy

Recent policy actions from the White House limit transgender rights in sports, immigration visas, and overarching federal policy.

Published

on

President Donald Trump stands in the Roosevelt Room in December 2025. (Washington Blade Photo by Joe Reberkenny)

In a proclamation issued by the Trump White House Thursday night, the president said he would, among other things, “restore public safety” and continue “upholding the rule of law,” while promoting policies that restrict the rights of transgender people.

“We are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written, and ensuring colleges preserve — and, where possible, expand — scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes,” the proclamation reads. “At the same time, we are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”

The statement comes amid a broader series of actions by the Trump administration targeting transgender people across multiple federal policy areas, including education, health care, and immigration. A nearly complete list of policies the current administration has put forward can be found on KFF.org.

One day before the proclamation was issued, the U.S. State Department announced changes to visa regulations that could impact transgender and gender-nonconforming people seeking entry into the United States.

The policy, published March 11 and scheduled to take effect April 10, introduces changes to the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, commonly known as the “DV Program.” The rule is framed by the department as an effort to strengthen oversight and prevent fraud within the visa lottery system, which allocates a limited number of immigrant visas annually to applicants from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.

However, the updated language also standardizes the use of the term “sex” in federal regulations in place of “gender,” a change that LGBTQ advocates say could create additional barriers for transgender and gender-diverse applicants.

The policy states: “The Department of State (‘Department’) is amending regulations governing the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (‘DV Program’) to improve the integrity of, and combat fraud in, the program. These amendments require a petitioner to the DV Program to provide valid, unexpired passport information and to upload a scan of the biographic and signature page in the electronic entry form or otherwise indicate that he or she is exempt from this requirement. Additionally, the Department is standardizing and amending its regulations to add the word ‘shall’ to simplify guidance for consular officers; ensure the use of the term ‘sex’ in lieu of ‘gender’; and replace the term ‘age’ in the DV Program regulations with the phrase ‘date of birth’ to accurately reflect the information collected and maintained by the Department during the immigrant visa process.”

Advocates say the shift toward using “sex” rather than “gender” in federal immigration rules reflects a broader push by the administration to roll back recognition of transgender identities in federal policy.

According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, an estimated 15,000 to 50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants currently live in the United States, with many entering the country to seek refuge from persecution and hostile governments in their home countries.

Continue Reading

Florida

Fla. House passes ‘Anti-Diversity’ bill

Measure could open door to overturning local LGBTQ rights protections

Published

on

(Photo by Catella via Bigstock)

The Florida House of Representatives on March 10 voted 77-37 to approve an “Anti-Diversity in Local Government” bill that opponents have called an extreme and sweeping measure that, among other things, could overturn local LGBTQ rights protections.

The House vote came six days after the Florida Senate voted 25-11 to pass the same bill, opening the way to send it to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who supports the bill and has said he would sign it into law.

Equality Florida, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy organization that opposed the legislation, issued a statement saying the bill “would ban, repeal, and defund any local government programming, policy, or activity that provides ‘preferential treatment or special benefits’ or is designed or implemented with respect to race, color, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

The statement added that the bill would also threaten city and county officials with removal from office “for activities vaguely labeled as DEI,” with only limited exceptions.

“Written in broad and ambiguous language, the bill is the most extreme of its kind in the country, creating confusion and fear for local governments that recognize LGBTQ residents and other communities that contribute to strength and vibrancy of Florida cities,” the group said in a separate statement released on March 10.

The Miami Herald reports that state Sen. Clay Yarborough (R-Jacksonville), the lead sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said he added language to the bill that would allow the city of Orlando to continue to support the Pulse nightclub memorial, a site honoring 49 mostly LGBTQ people killed in the 2016 mass shooting at the LGBTQ nightclub.

But the Equality Florida statement expresses concern that the bill can be used to target LGBTQ programs and protections.

“Debate over the bill made expressly clear that LGBTQ people were a central target of the legislation,” the group’s statement says. “The public record, the bill sponsors’ own statements, and hours of legislative debate revealed the animus driving the effort to pressure local governments into pulling back from recognizing or resourcing programs targeting LGBTQ residents and other historically marginalized communities,” the statement says.

But the statement also notes that following outspoken requests by local officials, sponsors of the bill agreed to several amendments “ensuring local governments can continue to permit Pride festivals, even while navigating new restrictions on supporting or promoting them.”     

The statement adds, “Florida’s LGBTQ community knows all too well how to fight back against unjust laws. Just as we did, following the passage of Florida’s notorious ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans’ law, we will fight every step of the way to limit the impact of this legislation, including in the courts.”

Continue Reading

The White House

Trump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions

Measure described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’

Published

on

President Donald Trump speaks at the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Donald Trump said he will refuse to sign any legislation into law unless Congress passes the “SAVE Act,” pressuring lawmakers to move forward with the controversial voting bill.

In posts on Truth Social and other social media platforms, the 47th president emphasized the importance of Republican lawmakers pushing the legislation through while also using the opportunity to denounce gender-affirming care.

“I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed, AND NOT THE WATERED DOWN VERSION — GO FOR THE GOLD,” Trump posted. “MUST SHOW VOTER I.D. & PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP: NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS EXCEPT FOR MILITARY — ILLNESS, DISABILITY, TRAVEL: NO MEN IN WOMEN’S SPORTS: NO TRANSGENDER MUTILIZATION FOR CHILDREN! DO NOT FAIL!!!”

The proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections. Trump has also called for the legislation to include a ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent.

“This is a huge priority for the president. He added on some priorities to the SAVE America Act in recent days, namely, no transgender transition surgeries for minors. We are not gonna tolerate the mutilation of young children in this country. No men in women’s sports,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said. “The president putting all of these priorities together speaks to how common sense they are.”

The comments mark the first time the White House has publicly confirmed that Trump is pushing to attach anti-trans policies to the SAVE Act.

The bill would also require the removal of undocumented immigrants from existing voter rolls and allow election officials who fail to enforce the proof-of-citizenship requirement to be sued.

It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. Current safeguards include requirements such as providing a Social Security number when registering to vote, cross-checking voter rolls with federal data and, in some states, requiring identification at the polls.

Trump began pushing for the legislation during his State of the Union address last month, where he singled out Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) by name while criticizing the lack of movement on the bill.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has denounced the legislation as “Jim Crow 2.0” and said it has little chance of advancing through the Senate, calling it “dead on arrival.”

In remarks on the Senate floor, Schumer said “the SAVE Act includes such extreme voter registration requirements that, if enacted, could disenfranchise 21 million American citizens.”

Trump has repeatedly used political messaging around trans youth and gender-affirming care as part of broader cultural and policy debates during his presidency — most recently during his State of the Union address, where he cited the case of Sage Blair, a Virginia teenager whose school allegedly encouraged her to transition without her parents’ consent.

LGBTQ advocates — including those familiar with Blair’s story — say the situation was far more complex than described and argue that using a single anecdote to justify sweeping federal restrictions could place trans people, particularly youth, at greater risk.

Continue Reading

Popular